fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
We have not read the pamphlet you refer to, so we can't comment intelligently on it. Those who want to read it can find it at:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Scams/Gove…sOfGovTheft.pdf
The book is also listed on the SEDM Forms page as form #11.408:
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The terms “domestic” and “foreign” relate only to corporations and partnerships and NOT human beings within the I.R.C. because that is what the term “person” also limits itself to in 26 USC 6671(b ) and 26 USC 7343.
Quote:TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 75 > Subchapter D > Sec. 7343.Sec. 7343. – Definition of term ''person''
The term ''person'' as used in this chapter url=”http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/stFch75.html”]Chapter 75[/url includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a [fiduciary] duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs
The “employee” they are talking about is that defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105(a), which is a “public officer” of the United States government and NOT an employee in an ordinary or common law sense. The ability to regulate private conduct, and therefore PRIVATE common law workers, is repugnant to the constitution. We allege that “employee”, in fact, is a word of art that means public officer and not ordinary workers.
Quote:TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart A > CHAPTER 21 > § 2105§ 2105. Employee
(a) For the purpose of this title, “employee”, except as otherwise provided by this section or when specifically modified, means an [PUBLIC] officer and an individual who is—
Incidentally, the “individual” named above is the ONLY “individual” who is the proper subject of the I.R.C. They can't lawfully regulate private conduct without violating the Constitution, so the officer above can ONLY be a PUBLIC officer. They don't have jurisdiction over human beings and they obviously acknowledge that by limiting their jurisdiction to these entites. The fidicuary duty to which they refer can arise ONLY through the operation of a contract, and that contract is the employment contract of public officers or the incorporation document of federal corporations. I would also add that the term “person” defined in I.R.C. 6671(b) and 7343 uses the word “includes” and that the term is limiting, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court:
Quote:“When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) (“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term”); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 (“As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'”); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read “as a whole,” post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General's restriction — “the child up to the head.” Its words, “substantial portion,” indicate the contrary.”We would also qualify the definitions of “domestic”, “foreign”, and “person” to suggest that the corporations and partnerships they mention are FEDERAL and NOT State corporations and partnerships in which the national but not federal government is a party. Legal “persons” that are either a federal corporation or a partnership in which the government is a party are the ONLY “taxpayers” within the meaning of the internal revenue code. The terms “U.S. citizen”, and “Resident” mentioned in 26 U.S.C. 911 also must be consistent with this definition of “person” and therefore are, by implication, also federal corporations or partnerships between the U.S. government. Even those occupying public office are engaged in a “partnership” within the meaning of federal law. The officer is in partnership with the office and the contract that establishes the partnership is Title 5 of the U.S. Code, which is private law for federal “employees” and therefore public officers.
The feds can only regulate and tax that which they create, and the only thing they can create are federal and not state corporations and partnerships with others.
Quote:“What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand.”Those who are stock holders in federal corporations are, according to the Supreme Court, federal contractors and therefore effectively “partners” with the federal government.
Quote:The court held that the first company's charter was a contract between it and the state, within the protection of the constitution of the United States, and that the charter to the last company was therefore null and void., Mr. Justice DAVIS, delivering the opinion of the court, said that, if anything was settled by an unbroken chain of decisions in the federal courts, it was that an act of incorporation was a contract between the state and the stockholders, 'a departure from which now would involve dangers to society that cannot be foreseen, whould shock the sense of justice of the country, unhinge its business interests, and weaken, if not destroy, that respect which has always been felt for the judicial department of the government.'[New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U.S. 650 (1885)]
Stock holders of federal corporations are NOT “officers of a corporation” as described in I.R.C. 6671(b) and 7343 as far as we can tell, but they are partners with the federal government, based on the above.
The issue of the definition of “person” mentioned above was raised as a defense in the injunction proceeding against one of our members relating to this website. Both the court and the U.S. Attorney refused to deal with the issue, even though the Stenberg case clearly established that they can't add anything not included in the the definition SOMEWHERE within the I.R.C. They were asked to remain silent on everything they agreed with pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6) and they were silent, and therefore agreed that their enforcement proceeding was a criminal tort against our member. When they were presented with a default judgment against them, they did not dispute it. For details, see:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Case…sen/CHansen.htm
SCUMBAGS!
If you would like to investigate this matter further, see:
Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You Are a Public Officer for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
You are not free to presume anything or to add anything you want to a definition. The purpose of providing definitions is to SUPERSEDE, not enlarge, the ordinary meaning of words. You are missing the most fundamental and basic aspect of law, which is that it functions essentially as a delegation of authority order to those who are subject to it that limits and confines their authority.
Quote:“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts and the law is the definition and limitation of power.“[Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)]
Written law cannot serve the purpose of “defining and limiting power” if the reader is free to add whatever they want to a definition, and it wouldn't be a definition if it didn't include ALL essential elements and implicitly exclude all those things not expressly named SOMEWHERE in the code.
Quote:definition. A description of a thing by its properties; an explanation of the meaning of a word or term. The process of stating the exact meaning of a word by means of other words. Such a description of the thing defined, including all essential elements and excluding all nonessential, as to distinguish it from all other things and classes.“[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 423]
“Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100. Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another. When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.”
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 581]
If you want to add human beings to the definition of “foreign” and “domestic”, then you have the burden of proof to show me a statutory definition of these words SOMEWHERE in the code that expresslly names or identifies the specific types of entities you want to add. Otherwise, you are violating due process of law using presumption and violating the rules of statutory construction. See:
Quote:“The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions,”Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
You need to read the following document and you will understand these concepts better:
Meaning of the Words “includes” and “including”
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Fals…c/Includess.pdf
-
Hilarious! For more information along the same lines, see:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/SpamAward.pdf
-
Neo,
Excellent observation. That does seem to be a great way to avoid the issue of the status of the “person” filling out the form. HOWEVER, now you are creating an even worst presumption, which is that you are the “executor” for the “estate” of a deceased “taxpayer” subject to I.R.C. Subtitle B. Unfortunately, the I.R.C. does validly confer liablity for tax upon trustees of estates of deceased persons who were domiciled on federal territory (“U.S. persons” under 26 USC 7701(a)(30)) and is one of the few subject matters where the actual word “liability” is used. This creates whole new problems that ought to be entirely avoided, because you don't EVER want to be a “person” who is in fact and actually and lawfully “liable”. See:
http://sedm.org/Forms/Discovery/IRSDueProcMtgHandout.pdf
Within the above, look at the liablity statutes for I.R.C. Subtitle B, Estate and Gift Taxes, found in Section 8 in the third row of the table. It lists a REAL liablity statute for executors at 26 U.S.C. 2002. See:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc…02—-000-.html
I don't want to be one of these and neither should you! Saying you're a “foreign estate” under 26 USC 7701(a)(31) can deflect some of the heat, but ultimately, it's still an “estate” and they are going to self-servingly PRESUME that you are the liable “executor” who is a “transferee” for a deceased “taxpayer” domiciled on federal territory.
For further details, see:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Instruct…YouStrawman.htm
The trap you fell into is ASSUMING that you can be sovereign and describe yourself as ANYTHING they have jurisdiction over that is either defined or referenced in the private law franchise agreement called “code” as having a liability. If you were going to take this approach, you would STILL need to:
1. Attach the following form to remove all doubt:
Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. Describe yourself as NOT being:
2.1 A “person”, “individual”, “trust”, “estate” or anything else defined in the I.R.C.
2.2 The “transferee” or “executor” mentioned in 26 USC 6902. All “executors” are “transferees”.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc…02—-000-.html
Whenever you fill out a government form, they will always omit the two most important options in the “status” or entity type boxes, which are:
1. “none of the above” AND
2. “not subject but not exempt”
By omitting the two above options, the govenrment is indirectly compelling you to contract with and associate with them, because all franchises are contracts, and you must associate (exercise your First Amendment right to associate) with them by choosing a domicile WITHIN their jurisdiction (as a “protected person” and therefore a “customer” called a “citizen” or “resident”) before they can even lawfullly contract with you to begin with under the civil law.
The approach should always be to add a new box that says “Not subject but not exempt” and check it. This is further detailed in:
1. Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Section 6.10
http://famguardian.org/Publications/Flawed…ArgsToAvoid.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
2. Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Section 5
http://sedm.org/Forms/Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
The Tax Form Attachment indicated above solves this problem in section 4 by defining all key “words of art” used on every tax form to place you squarely outside of federal territory and not ANYTHING mentioned anywhere in the I.R.C.
http://sedm.org/Forms/Tax/Withholding/TaxFormAtt.pdf
All governments are just corporations, and until you thoroughly understand the rules for contracting with them, you will never be free. Everyone who contracts with the government and, by implication participates in its franchises, which are also contracts, effectively becomes an “officer” of that corporation and therefore the “person” mentioned in I.R.C. Sections 6671( 😎 and 7343. See:
Corporatization and Privatization of the Government, Form #05.024
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
This discussion ought to illuminate the biblical prohibition against fornicating with the “Beast”, which Revelations 19:19 defines as the governments and rulers of the world. Black's Law dictionary defines “commerce” as intercourse, which is a synonym for fornication. Contracting with the government is the “commerce” and “intercourse” subject to the biblical prohibition.
Quote:“And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her [the pagan government that worships the MONEY that is the root of all evil, and therefore worships EVIL], my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. 6 Render to her just as she rendered to you,url=”http:///#fen-NKJV-30994c”]c[/url and repay her double according to her works; in the cup which she has mixed, mix double for her. 7 In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, 'I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow.' 8 Therefore her plagues [economic catastophe's and BAILOUTS] will come in one day—death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges her.“[Rev. 18:4-8, Bible, NKJV]
_________________________________________“Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers [the heathens], nor observe their judgments, nor defile yourselves with their [pagan government] idols. I am the LORD your God: Walk in My statutes, keep My judgments, and do them; hallow My Sabbaths, and they will be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the LORD your God.”
[Ezekial 20:10-20, Bible, NKJV][/i]
_________________________________________“You shall make no covenant [contract or franchise] with them [foreigners, pagans], nor with their [pagan government] gods [laws or judges]. They shall not dwell in your land [and you shall not dwell in theirs by becoming a “resident” in the process of contracting with them], lest they make you sin against Me [God]. For if you serve their gods [under contract or agreement or franchise], it will surely be a snare to you.”
[Exodus 23:32-33, Bible, NKJV]
For more quotes like those above, see:
http://sedm.org/Commandments.htm
“Coming out of her” (Babylon/District of Criminals) means not choosing a domicile within “her” and thereby being a “nonresident”, and not contracting with her nor participating in her franchises, because all franchises, including the “trade or business” franchise that is the heart of the income tax, are contracts.
Quote:As a rule, franchises spring from contracts between the sovereign power and private citizens, made upon valuable considerations, for purposes of individual advantage as well as public benefit, [1] and thus a franchise partakes of a double nature and character. So far as it affects or concerns the public, it is publici juris and is subject to governmental control. The legislature may prescribe the manner of granting it, to whom it may be granted, the conditions and terms upon which it may be held, and the duty of the grantee to the public in exercising it, and may also provide for its forfeiture upon the failure of the grantee to perform that duty. But when granted, it becomes the property of the grantee, and is a private right, subject only to the governmental control growing out of its other nature as publici juris. [2][Am.Jur.2d, Franchises, §4: Generally]
[1]Georgia R. & Power Co. v. Atlanta, 154 Ga 731, 115 SE 263; Lippencott v. Allander, 27 Iowa 460; State ex rel. Hutton v. Baton Rouge, 217 La 857, 47 So 2d 665; Tower v. Tower & S. Street R. Co. 68 Minn 500, 71 NW 691.
[2] Georgia R. & Power Co. v. Atlanta, 154 Ga 731, 115 SE 263; Lippencott v. Allander, 27 Iowa 460; State ex rel. Hutton v. Baton Rouge, 217 La 857, 47 So 2d 665; Tower v. Tower & S. Street R. Co. 68 Minn 500, 71 NW 691.
You should view EVERY opportunity to submit a government form to anyone as an exercise of your right to contract with the government. Refusing to contract means:
1. Not completing government forms.
2. Not describing yourself as anything on the form and therefore not anything within the franchise contract.
3. Attaching the Tax Form Attachment to prevent presumptions about the meaning of words that could be used to infer consent to the franchise/contract.
4. Telling those who insist that you must fill out the form to begin with be warned that they are practing law without a license and doing so on your behalf and without your consent.
5. Insisting that it constitutes involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to compel you to either complete a government form or to fill it out in a certain way. It also means PROSECUTING those who engage in such slavery privately and personally because no lawyer is eve going to bite the hand that feeds him or jeoparidize the license that his government benefactors use to silence dissent.
6. Arguing that anyone who wants to compel you to describe yourself on a government form in a way that you know does not describe you is committing the crime of suborning perjury and tampering with a witness. All government forms are signed under penalty of perjury and therefore constitute “testimony of a witness”.
-
stija,
Thank you for your observations. You are absolutely correct and yes, we too have read Kowalik’s book and agree with his analysis. The only exception we take with his view is that he trashes the Nonresident Alien Position because he really doesn’t understand the WHOLE picture and is only looking at a small piece. See:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
People are naturally repulsed by things they don’t understand, and especially those with big egos, because it forces them to admit they are either ignorant or wrong or both. Yet, ironically, even Frank Kowalik uses the Nonresident Alien Position! He advocates citing 26 USC 7701(a)(31) on the back of checks he cashes, and the only person who satisfies that criteria is a nonresident alien. He doesn’t understand the nonresident alien position because, like most freedom fighters, he doesn’t understand citizenship. Understanding citizenship is the FIRST and most important aspect of becoming free and restoring your sovereignty. See:
Why You Are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
Otherwise, your understanding of Frank’s excellent book is accurate, and is also confirmed by Great IRS Hoax, section 5.6.10 et seq.
Fantastic job. Keep it up. We hope to hear a lot more from you on these forums because you are obviously doing your homework. Hopefully, you will feel some moral obligation to bless others in these forums as a means of expressing your appreciation for what you have gleaned by frequenting this website and participating in the ministry.
_______________________
Franklin,
We have also heard Frank on a conference call at the now defunct IMF Decoders addressing the “transferee” issue, and he agrees with your analysis completely. Yes:
1. The ONLY “taxpayer” is the U.S. government.
2. Everyone who owes a tax, which is really just a “kickback” paid by a public officer in the Legislative Branch, is really just a “transferee” in temporary custody of funds actually owned and received by the “U.S. Inc.”.
3. I.R.C. Subtitle A describes a “public officer kickback program”, not a legitimate “tax” in the classical sense of the word.
Frank Kowalik agrees with us on this and nearly all other issues. Members of this Ministry have spoken with him on the phone on this subject. These conclusions are exhaustively proven in the following document:
Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You Are a “public officer” for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008
-
poldon,
WARNING: I wouldn't trust angeleyes. That member is new to these forums and until they demonstrate an ongoing commitment over a period of years to helping people in these forums, personal contact and personal information disclosure should be avoided because they are likely a mole. These forums have been frequented by moles in the past and the goal of all moles is to persecute and discredit those who are helping others such as the person you mentioned.
A red flag should go up in your mind whenever anyone tries to get you to disclose any personal information about either yourself or someone you know, and especially if they are new to these forums or visit infrequently. Please be discerning. Caveat emptor.
-
gleaner,
Please read the following and the truth should become clear to you about citizenship. Otherwise, you are wasting our time by rehashing old material and repeating ourselves.
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen
http://famguardian.o…hyANational.pdf
The above appears in section 7.1 of the taxes page:
http://famguardian.o…es.htm#Remedies
We won't reward or encourage laziness or do the homework for people that they should be doing for themselves with materials that are already on this website and which are so carefully organized that there is no way you could miss them. If you don't want to do your due diligence, then learn to be a good government whore and bend over. We'd like to reserve these forums for new things, not things that are already resolved and documented on this website.
-
Thanks, Riverway.
It's hard to imagine how anyone could miss the Path to Freedom document. It's at the top of most pages of this website as “START HERE”. It appears on the opening page in big letters as “START HERE” (http://famguardian.org). If there is some way to make it more obvious than that so that people like nubins don't have to ask the questions he asked, we would love to hear what it is.
Our Disclaimer requires that the only thing you can rely on for guidance or as a basis for “reasonable belief” about what you are required to do is the written law itself. You should not look on anything other than that, including any statements from any ministry member or forum participant, as either “guidence” or as legal advice. Our materials are useful in educating people about what part of the law to look at, but ultimately the only thing they can or should rely on is the law. See the following for what constitutes a “reasonable belief” according to the courts and the law itself:
Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
-
When some of our members terminated our voter registration, they did the following:
1. Asked the Registrar of Voters for the request form they use to terminate voter registration.
2. Signed the form.
3. Above the signature, they put the following language:
Quote:I certify that I have never been a “U.S. citizen” as defined in 8 USC 1401 and that I have never been eligible to vote in any national election because never domiciled on federal territory within the country.4. Then they had them photocopy the submission, stamp it with their seal as “certified to be a true copy”, and kept the certified copy for our records.
You should regard every interaction with the government as being a useful opportunity to generate evidence of your status in the public record as was done above. For further information on this subject see:
Techniques for Building a Good Administrative Record, Form #07.003
http://sedm.org/Forms/ResponseLetters/Guid…AdminRecord.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
-
Republic,
Thanks for your posts so far. Based on the response of the Passport Office, we have renamed the following document and all references to the document as follows:
Old document name: Why you are a “national”, or “state national” and not a “U.S. citizen”.
New Document name: Why You Are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen
Link: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt…hyANational.pdf
It's obvious that the passport office is trying to abuse words of art to entice you to argue the wrong issues. They are trying to get you to argue that you are not a “U.S. citizen” rather than dealing with the ONLY issues raised in the USA Passport Application Attachmetn, which is:
1. Which of the three “United States” do they mean in the phrase “U.S. citizen”.
2. Which of the four statutory citizenship statuses are they referring to?
2.1 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and 8 USC 1452 “non-citizen national” (domiciled in a state of the Union)
2.2 8 USC 1401 (domiciled on federal territory)
2.3 8 USC 1101(a)(22)( :cool:, 8 USC 1408, and 8 USC 1452 “U.S national” or “national of the United States” (domiciled in a U.S. possession such as American Samoa or Swain's Island)
With this new name for the document, they are forced to stay on point. Thanks also for the feedback on errors, which we just fixed.
We agree with Bing's approach so far.
-
Republic,
Thanks for the feedback. You are correct. All the errors you pointed out have been fixed and the document has been reposted at the following link:
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
-
We should avoid all word traps and the presumptions they are engineered to promote by defining every key “word of art” appearing on any government form we submit by attaching the appropriate attachments, which usually include one or more of the following:
1. USA Passport Application Attachment, Form #06.007
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, form #02.001
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
3. Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201
-
Thanks for the responsive letter, which will be very helpful in improving our materials.
For the benefit of all readers, republic is referring to the response to the process for applying for a passport documented below:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citi…orAPassport.htm
They didn’t address in their response the ONLY issue raised in the USA passport application: Which of the three “United States” they are referring to within the term “citizen of the United States” for the purposes of both the DS-11 form, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Title 8 of the U.S. code. They are avoiding the issues because they would be rendering legal advice and blow up their gravy train of plunder to even directly address the issues. They are simply trying to punish you for insisting on your rights by delaying their compliance with the requirements of the law in the hopes of you getting impatient and giving in by becoming a privileged statutory “U.S. citizen”. Don’t give in that easily and stand your ground!
I would send them back a rebuttal to the person who sent it to you. They didn’t deny your application because they didn’t address what specifically was wrong with it. That is what you need to focus on. The application with the USA Passport Application Attachment does not contend that you are not a “citizen of the United States”, but simply clarifies WHICH of the three “United States” are meant in the context of the term and excludes the meaning of “united States” implied in federal statutory law.
The application never argued that you were NOT a Fourteenth Amendment citizen and in fact said that you were. This is a definition issue, not a dispute of fact. They can’t settle the controversy until they produce the evidence proving which of the three “United STates” are implied in both the fourteenth amendment and the “United States” used within Title 8 of the U.S. Code. The following document proves that they are NOT the same or equivalent.
Why You are a “national” or a “state national” and not a “U.S. citizen”
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
Stick to the basic facts in your response and demand that they deal with the ONLY issue raised in the USA passport application: evidence supporting which “United States” is meant in each context on the DS-11, the passport, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Title 8 of the U.S. code. These contexts do NOT use the same meaning, and they are trying to exploit this ambiguity to draw you unlawfully within the jurisdiction of federal statutory law. In short, they are abusing words of art to try to kidnap your identity illegally and connect it to a domicile on federal territory so they can plunder you and thereby destroy the separation of powers.
We would appreciate if you would post your response here so it can be improved.
-
More background on the swine flu manufactured panic:
-
I use Nitro PDF to modify government PDF forms all the time. Works great. Ditto for Adobe LiveCycle Designer. You're having problems most likely because you're not a computer techie.
-
If you are indeed am American citizen by virtue of the act, we see no reason why the procedures on this site would be any different for those in your circumstance. We are not familiar with the laws you cite and if you say that you are an American, just follow the same procedure for passports and citizenship as everyone else who is a state national or non-citizen national.
You're not allowed to use the word “advice” on this website. We can't give legal advice per our Prohibited Activities listed in Section 12 of our About Us page. All we can do is point people to the applicable laws and let them decide what to do based on the options made availabe by the specific statute in question.
Good luck!